MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992605568 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.6.3.90

The benefits of exposure therapy alone may last longer than sertraline alone or sertraline plus exposure therapy in social phobia

2003· letter· en· W1992605568 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSertralineMedicineInternal medicinePsychosocialPsychiatryPsychologyAnxietyAntidepressant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haug TT, Blomhoff S, Hellstrom K et al. Exposure therapy and sertraline in social phobia: 1-year follow up of a randomised control trial. Br J Psychiatry2003 , Apr; 182 : 312 –8. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: Do the benefits of exposure therapy and sertraline for social phobia last after treatment has ceased? Randomised controlled trial with allocation concealment. Physicians and patients were blind to pharmacological treatment allocation (but not psychosocial treatment). Norway and Sweden; timeframe not specified. 375 people aged 18–65 years with generalised social phobia of at least 1 year duration (DSM-IV criteria) rated as moderately ill (score of 4 or greater on overall severity item of the Clinical Global Impression - Social Phobia scale, severity sub-scale). Participants were recruited from 41 primary care centres in Norway and Sweden and from advertisements in newspapers and other media. 61% were female; mean age was 40 years; mean age at symptom onset was 16 years; mean duration of illness was 24 years. People with comorbid dysthymia or … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BBritish%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DBr.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DHAUG%26rft.auinit1%253DT.%2BT.%26rft.volume%253D182%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D312%26rft.epage%253D318%26rft.atitle%253DExposure%2Btherapy%2Band%2Bsertraline%2Bin%2Bsocial%2Bphobia%253A%2BI-year%2Bfollow-up%2Bof%2Ba%2Brandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1192%252Fbjp.182.4.312%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12668406%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bjprcpsych&resid=182/4/312&atom=%2Febmental%2F6%2F3%2F90.atom

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207